*laughs, nods head sadly, and walks off*

Willpower in nWoD does no such thing. And even if it did, Willpower is a derived attribute that ties to the way you roleplay your character's morals. Does that sound like something they plan on doing with Edge?

edit: *sigh* disregard this post. i am going to have things to say, later.

It does, very directly, impact a character's actions. Its direct and its mechanical and it is indivisible from the way in which Willpower is used.

Characters have a Virtue and Vice. By fulfilling their virtue, once per game session they can refill their Willpower pool. By fulfilling their vice, once per scene they can regain one Willpower. Otherwise it refreshes at one point per day.

You can't tell me that the way a resource pool is refreshed is not an issue of game mechanics.

There's a whole lot more to roleplaying then just rolling dice.

By that kind of silly logic, there's no point comparing any rules with one another if there's even a minor variation in how they're determined. According to what you're saying, you can't even compare Skills between Shadowrun and Storyteller because in Shadowrun, your Skills are purchased as individual scores with a price determined by their linked Attribute, whereas in the old Storyteller system they're assigned to you at a fixed rate per group with no linked-Attribute limitations -- so, obviously, they can't serve a similar function in the game because they're not derived the exact same way.

That's just a dumb reason to say that they both don't do the same basic thing (determine in part how many dice you throw for performing an action).

How a score is determined or improved has nothing to do with how they're used in the game when discussing that specific set of rules (how they're used).

i wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it. but doc's right: how a mechanic is used can have just as much impact as what the mechanic actually is.

How is it not important where you get your skills? Isn't that just as much of an aspect of the "dice mechanic" as how many dice you're rolling? If Edge is increased by itself, then it has no other ramifications then its "more edge". If its a derived trait, that means something completely different.

Are you saying that Combat Pool would behave the same way as it does now in SR3 if it were bought up individually instead of derived?

And anyway, the point is not wether they're used the same way or not. The point is the "feel" behind all the different mechanics. And I think that where a trait comes from has far more effect on the way it "feels" then how its used does.

Just for clarity, I'm going to restate the purpose of this thread.

People are afraid that Shadowrun is going to lose its flavor, its "feel" with this new Edition. This is a valid fear, I am not disputing that. What I believe to be an invalid fear is that Shadowrun's new "feel" will be in line with the feel of the nWoD.

Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

Do you think Shadowrun 3 the game would behave the same way as it does now if Combat Pool were bought up individually instead of derived?

nerbert, for pete's sake, how a mechanic is used is the whole point of the mechanic. if two different mechanics are used to achieve the same effect, then by definition there are parallels between the mechanics.

edit: yes, it would be different--but not so different as to be unrecognizable, or even too far removed from the current version of SR.

The reason I picked Combat Pool is because its a very touchy character trait, with a lot of game balance issues involved with it.

Changing the way Combat Pool is calculated would have far reaching consequences to all the rest of the mechanics in the game. The way attributes are purchased, the balance between combat and magical characters. Imagine being able to buy up Combat Pool sperately and put all your attributes into Wisdom and Charisma. One of the big points of Combat Pool is that you can't realistically have a very high combat pool along with very high strength without a lot of deep investment.

There are clearly parallels between the way the Edge and Willpower work or we wouldn't be comparing them. What I'm arguing is that because of the nature of their differences, the feel between the two of them is different.

Imagine in SR3 if your combat pool only refreshed by one point every time you roll initiative and that in order to get the rest of it, you had to go over to your enemies and give them a hug.

you're arguing that nWoD Willpower and SR4 Edge work differently, and then arguing that because of that, they don't convey the same feel to their respective games. so, yes. that is indeed what you're saying.

The way that actions are carried out have a massive impact on the feel of the game. The only Storyteller games I played were Hunter, Vampire, and Exalted. Hunter and Vampire felt very similar except that in one I am a "normal" person fighting against evil and in the other I was a blase immortal. The way the game played was exactly the same. Exalted felt different because the system was different. It had fixed TNs and the botch system was a lot more lenient. It didn't feel like the other two games I had played NOT COUNTING the fluff.

The fear most of us have is that with the drastic changes to SR4 that SEEM to make it more in line with the Storyteller games (nWoD is essentially Exalted) is that the game will play in a similar style. When you play SR3 you use the dice differently than you do in ED which has a major impact on the actions you had your character attempt. If SR4 is more like nWoD a lot of the feel of the rules--lethality, difficulty of completing tasks, difference between the four aspects (matrix, magic, vehicles, and RL)--will disappear. In the Storyteller games I didn't give a S**t about what I did because the rules protected me and made it harder for me to die than they did in SR3. If I want a game where I don't have to worry about failure I'll stick to playing 7th Sea.

Lets take a look at two games which are very different in feel and yet have not only the same dice system, but the same setting.

Dungeons and Dragons 1st edition and 3rd edition.

I don't know how much any of you have played either of these games. I make no assumptions except that you all know what D&D is and roughly how to play.

Any experienced D&D player can attest that the games have very different feels. Characters in 3e are more powerful, and less likely to die, particularly at lower levels. Additionally characters are customizeable, letting players really feel that a character is theirs, and unique. There are more classes and they're more well defined. There are skills that allow you to interact with the world in a substantially different way then you were allowed to in 1st edition. None of these differences have anything to do with the setting whatsoever, and none of them have anything to do with the basic dice mechanic whatsoever.

Now, if two games with the same setting and "Core Dice Mechanic" can feel so substantially different, what on earth makes you think that two games with the same dice mechanic and utterly incongruent settings, themes and goals will feel anything alike?

There's more to a game then its "core" dice mechanic. There's more to the core of a game then its dice mechanic.

nerbert, did you get kicked in the head when you were a kid? the only thing 1e and 3e have in common is the die types that are rolled and the fact that character growth is measured in levels. the skill system is completely different, character advancement has been almost completely rewritten, the classes have all been largely changed, an entire new character option has been added, experience points are gained differently--3e feels different because it's a different game.

But the CORE DICE MECHANIC is the same!

d20 vs TN!

Thats what this whole argument is about!

SR4 and nWoD are different games, yet I get accused of being an abused-as-a-child paint chip eater for suggesting that they won't feel anything alike!

You're doing horrible things to this poor, dead, horse, Nerby. Unwholesome, horrible, things.

You know what, I'd love to see this thread end as much as anybody, I think its retarded. Yet I still see people suggesting that FanPro is publishing the lastest WoD game and people keep posting here telling me that I'm wrong, they don't ever really respond to anything I say, they just accuse me of eating paint chips or being kicked in the head, and leave it at that.

If any mods read this, I'd be happy to see this thread locked or deleted. Its obvious no one reads it, and the people who do don't have anything productive to say.

no, that's the point you're trying to argue. you're completely ignoring the other points of comparison that have been brought up. if it were just the core mechanic, sure--but it's not just the core mechanic.

What points of comparison have I forgotten or ignored, I'm really, very curious.

There are some cases where you roll a few dice and add them together. For example, the Blood Kite rolls 2d6 if it successfully damages an opponent, and a 12 results in an eye getting potentially scratched out. Also, Initiative works on variable dice added together plus a constant.

That being said, the xd6 vs. TN mechanic is overwhelmingly more universal than d20 vs. TN ever was in AD&D.

~J

aggravation removed

Critias, you clearly put a lot of thought into that post, and I find that wildly hypocritical. Basically, for a subject you don't care about, or have any vested interest in, you sure manage to post in it an awful lot, and you're definitely passionate about it.

Unless you're just trolling... or flaming... where have I seen those two words before?

What's hypocritical is that you put so much time into a post to explain why this thread is a waste of time.

The subject you don't care about is the subject of this particular thread. You clearly don't care about discussing, rationally, the similarities of the two games. You just say the same things, over and over, and nothing that happens in response makes any difference. You think this is a "yeah huh, nuh uh" level argument? Who's saying the other half? Who? Apparently, according to your post, its me. I'm just logging on with different screennames and arguing with myself. I don't know.

Why do you post so much bullshit? Why take time out of your life to make sarcastic, insulting, one-liners in a thread you don't even care about? That is the definition of trolling. And the personal shit that I need to grow a thick skin about? Thats the very definition of flaming.

Swordfish mustardball.

Thats the first rational thing I've ever heard you say.

Like what? What has he said? I honestly can't think of anything. Everything people say to me I've tried to respond to with respect and sincerity. And apparently, somehow, I've earned the reputation of being a paint chip eating brain damaged mental ward out patient. If I say something that lacks clarity, am I told "Your post is unclear to me."? No. I'm told that I am so dysfunctional in my communication ability that I am literally speaking gibberish.

If I make a valid point, is it ever acknowledged? I don't know, no one has ever acknowledged anything I have ever said as being valid. And yet no one can clearly explain to me why everything I say is invalid directly. It has to be wrapped in sarcasm and personal insults first, and then it has to prefaced be repeating everything I have ever said that was clearly wrong, wether or not I've already admitted my mistake.

Wow, Crimsondude, I had a small amount of respect for you until you edited your small, pointless post into a very long pointless post.

Well, it's still better and less prone to mod deletion than my initial response.

But speaking as someone who rarely is understood around here, I can say that your posts come off the same way as mine do to a lot of people--that is, that they make no sense.

But your response to Critias. That was just really fucking dumb.

Was his reply to me not really fucking dumb? Was my dumbness so much greater then his that it required your full attention?

Because it's not true

Its remarkable then which falsehoods you allow to remain unchallenged, and which you feel the need to personally comment on.

Okay guys, poor Nerbert has taken plenty of abuse for his belief that the dice rolling system, as we know it, is significantly different then WoD. I'm sorry to say Nerbert is incorrect. The difference between a 2 in 6 chance and a 3 in 10 chance is not enough to make the game system significantly different.

The basic dice rolling system is still the same. You roll a handfull of dice and count the number of them that have a value higher then some fixed number. It's simplistic at best.

Now, in Nerberts defense... There could still be significant differences in the system. Simply comparing how dice are rolled is not enough to compare two game systems. We can say there is common ground, based on the little bit we know. But, we don't know yet how the number of dice you roll is determined. We know part of the formula (Attribute + Skill) which is also the same as WoD, but we don't know how other things affect that number of dice.

In WoD, equipment adds or subtracts to dice totals. There is no concept of an opposed roll in combat, damage is determined by a single roll. I doubt shadowrun will keep the same game mechanic. But, all I can do for now is doubt. I don't know what the new rules say. I can say I'm looking forward to finding out.

So for the moment, lets all give Nerbert a break and lets agree on this... The basic mechanic of how dice are rolled does not differ significantly from WoD. How this is changed, modified, or interpreted in the game could be significantly different and we just don't know yet.

You two should get married.

Nerbert, I understand that you feel you have a point. And Critias also feels like he has a point. I think at this point in the conversation, neither of you are going to convince the other person. You're just going to continue defending yourselves in a mud-throwing contest. For your own personal sanity, I'd recommend you stop now, you're not winning any points (and neither is he). Your ideas will stand on their own as you've voiced them already. You can't do anything else to help your argument, and tossing insults will just make you more upset, so I suggest you simply stop responding to insults and let the thread die.

Or get married.

Well you'd need to do a detailed comparison of 'Marriage'. The Setting and the mechanics, then we might all understand.

But you'd have to concede, that no matter what they are the same.
But you'd have to concede, that no matter what they are the different.

Then you have to serve Swordfish Mustardball at the reception.

And invite as many flying poo flinging monkeys as you can lay hands on.

We could call it Marriage: The Nagging.

Do I hear the voice of experience talking?

~J

But the thing is, there IS something you can do! You can stop posting. Some people don't agree with you, and they never will! Some people have already been won over. But you're just wasting your breath now. Stop posting, and Critias will stop posting nasty things about your mother (in this thread) and everyone can be happier than they would be otherwise. (Actually, I'd sort of prefer you do keep posting, as I enjoy a good flame war.)

Apparently stupid insults for fun are more offensive to moderators than stupid insults directly directed on people ...
In my message was insults -indeed-, because I found the flame war funny, and precisely to take fun of a lot of insulting posts.
Anyway, Moderator ... you don't do anything like a message on a post to say a deletion has been done because of : insults ?

Eh men, reading this whole post should tell humor is the only way ...